swirlspice

aka swirlspice

Recent Tweets @
Posts I Like
Posts tagged "politics"
mauricecherry:

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

Poll tax receipt from Alabama, 1896. 
Citizens were required to pay a fee to register to vote. Poll taxes kept many poor Black people, and poor Whites, from voting, which was the intended purpose.

By the late 1870s Reconstruction was coming to an end. In the name of healing the wounds between North and South, most white politicians abandoned the cause of protecting African Americans.
In the former Confederacy and neighboring states, local governments constructed a legal system aimed at re-establishing a society based on white supremacy. African American men were largely barred from voting. Legislation known as Jim Crow laws separated people of color from whites in schools, housing, jobs, and public gathering places.
Denying black men the right to vote through legal maneuvering and violence was a first step in taking away their civil rights. Beginning in the 1890s, southern states enacted literacy tests, poll taxes, elaborate registration systems, and eventually whites-only Democratic Party primaries to exclude black voters.
The laws proved very effective. In Mississippi, fewer than 9,000 of the 147,000 voting-age African Americans were registered after 1890. In Louisiana, where more than 130,000 black voters had been registered in 1896, the number had plummeted to 1,342 by 1904.

(via Smithsonian National Museum of American History)

Never forget.

mauricecherry:

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

Poll tax receipt from Alabama, 1896.

Citizens were required to pay a fee to register to vote. Poll taxes kept many poor Black people, and poor Whites, from voting, which was the intended purpose.

By the late 1870s Reconstruction was coming to an end. In the name of healing the wounds between North and South, most white politicians abandoned the cause of protecting African Americans.

In the former Confederacy and neighboring states, local governments constructed a legal system aimed at re-establishing a society based on white supremacy. African American men were largely barred from voting. Legislation known as Jim Crow laws separated people of color from whites in schools, housing, jobs, and public gathering places.

Denying black men the right to vote through legal maneuvering and violence was a first step in taking away their civil rights. Beginning in the 1890s, southern states enacted literacy tests, poll taxes, elaborate registration systems, and eventually whites-only Democratic Party primaries to exclude black voters.

The laws proved very effective. In Mississippi, fewer than 9,000 of the 147,000 voting-age African Americans were registered after 1890. In Louisiana, where more than 130,000 black voters had been registered in 1896, the number had plummeted to 1,342 by 1904.

(via Smithsonian National Museum of American History)

Never forget.

(via mauricecherry)

The Twin Cities Daily Planet is collecting 60-second videos from Minnesotans sharing their thoughts about the marriage amendment. Here’s mine! I’m rocking my Project 515 shirt. Whaddya think?

You can see more at the Daily Planet’s video gallery, and then post your own answer.

The case against the voter ID amendment is remarkably easy to make. Setting aside the legitimate fear that this measure would disenfranchise thousands of Minnesotans, especially the elderly, we’re unconvinced that voter fraud is major concern in Minnesota — and even if it were, the measure that’s being put before voters would do little to fix the problem. More than 100 felons have been convicted of voting illegally in the 2008 election, but a photo ID law wouldn’t have stopped them from voting, because voting status doesn’t appear on a driver’s license.

Furthermore, the devil is in the details — especially when voters are being asked to vote on a proposal that has no details. The photo ID proposal has no implementation language, so we’re being asked to simply trust that our legislators will figure out a fair and affordable way of making sure that no voters are disenfranchised by the photo ID amendment. Frankly, what we’ve seen from St. Paul on this issue gives us little confidence in our legislators.

If our election system needs fixing, then the Legislature should fix it. That’s its job. We suggest the creation of a bipartisan election reform committee to write a complete bill, with a fiscal note on its costs, leaving nothing to hide. Protect the voting rights of the elderly and disabled, as well as our troops serving overseas, and utilize the best technology available, including pollbooks and facial recognition software to prevent fraud. Make sure that rural townships and sparsely populated counties don’t go broke trying to meeting unfunded mandates. If “vouching” is a problem, then nullify that provision in the current election law.

Such legislation might require a year or two to perfect, but what’s the rush? We’re not on the verge of seeing Minnesota’s democracy undermined by people who are willing to risk fines and imprisonment in order to cast an illegal vote.

Our View: Legislature’s job is to pass laws, not pass the buck to voters - Post Bulletin

The Rochester Post-Bulletin NAILS the entire argument against the Voter ID constitutional amendment.

emm-in-sem:

NPR, “How the Poor, the Middle Class, and the Rich Spend Their Money

Both the similarities and the differences are striking.

Everyone devotes a huge chunk of their budget to housing, for example. Poor, middle class and rich families spend similar shares of their budgets on clothing and shoes, and on food outside the home.

But poor families spend a much larger share of their budget on basic necessities such as food at home, utilities and health care. Rich families are able to devote a much bigger chunk of their spending to education, and a much, much bigger share to saving for retirement. (The retirement line includes contributions to Social Security and to private retirement plans, by the way.)

The figures in the graph come from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which has tons of data on spending patterns in the U.S.

(via dandelionbreaks)

stfuconservatives:

So here’s a megapost with lots of info. I’ll add things as people ask for them. These are all links to stuff I’ve posted before; I’m just collecting it all in one place as a reference for your Facebook fights.

Let me know if you need any other resources! Today, dear readers, we fight the Battle of Ignorance Bay on Facebook.

(via dandelionbreaks)

ladyatheist:

It’s really interesting to me to hear all of these white, cis, heterosexual republicans lament about how “great” America “used to be.” For anyone who doesn’t fit into one of those categories, the past was a really shitty time. At no prior point in time was it “better” to be a PoC, a woman, or a LGBT person. For us, this is the best time in history. America, while it’s not as good as it could be, has gotten a hell of a lot better than it was.

(via dandelionbreaks)

tcdailyplanet:

Here are what is misleading:

  1. The ballot language says all voters would be required to present valid IDs to be able to vote, but not all voters would be required. For example, absentee voters would not be required to present valid IDs.
  2. The ballot language says that the state would provide free IDs to all eligible voters when the law would only provide IDs to people who don’t already have government issued IDs.
  3. The ballot language only talks about Photo ID being required when the bill would actually institute provisional balloting.

Here is what the ballot language omits:

  1. Fails to disclose that it would institute provisional balloting. The next legislature would have to set it up.
  2. Fails to disclose that only government-issued IDs are valid.
  3. Fails to disclose that it would end same-day registration.

keep reading

fgallaghers:

[tw: sexual assault]

gardensgrey:

You won’t see Hillary Clinton in the same light ever again. Read Meryl Streep’s introduction of Hillary Clinton during the recent 2012 Women in the World conference:

Two years ago when Tina Brown and Diane von Furstenberg first envisioned this conference, they asked me to do a play, a reading, called – the name of the play was called Seven. It was taken from transcripts, real testimony from real women activists around the world. I was the Irish one, and I had no idea that the real women would be sitting in the audience while we portrayed them. So I was doing a pretty ghastly Belfast accent. I was just – I was imitating my friend Liam Neeson, really, and I sounded like a fellow. (Laughter). It was really bad.

So I was so mortified when Tina, at the end of the play, invited the real women to come up on stage and I found myself standing next to the great Inez McCormack. (Applause.) And I felt slight next to her, because I’m an actress and she is the real deal. She has put her life on the line. Six of those seven women were with us in the theater that night. The seventh, Mukhtaran Bibi, couldn’t come because she couldn’t get out of Pakistan. You probably remember who she is. She’s the young woman who went to court because she was gang-raped by men in her village as punishment for a perceived slight to their honor by her little brother. All but one of the 14 men accused were acquitted, but Mukhtaran won the small settlement. She won $8,200, which she then used to start schools in her village. More money poured in from international donations when the men were set free. And as a result of her trial, the then president of Pakistan, General Musharraf, went on TV and said, “If you want to be a millionaire, just get yourself raped.”

But that night in the theater two years ago, the other six brave women came up on the stage. Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:

“I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together.”

“I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me.”

“I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her.”

“I’m here today because of that, because of those stores.”

I didn’t know about this. I never knew any of it. And I think everybody should know. This hidden history Hillary has, the story of her parallel agenda, the shadow diplomacy unheralded, uncelebrated — careful, constant work on behalf of women and girls that she has always conducted alongside everything else a First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State is obliged to do.

And it deserves to be amplified. This willingness to take it, to lead a revolution – and revelation, beginning in Beijing in 1995, when she first raised her voice to say the words you’ve heard many times throughout this conference: “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.”

When Hillary Clinton stood up in Beijing to speak that truth, her hosts were not the only ones who didn’t necessarily want to hear it. Some of her husband’s advisors also were nervous about the speech, fearful of upsetting relations with China. But she faced down the opposition at home and abroad, and her words continue to hearten women around the world and have reverberated down the decades.

She’s just been busy working, doing it, making those words “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” into something every leader in every country now knows is a linchpin of American policy. It’s just so much more than a rhetorical triumph. We’re talking about what happened in the real world, the institutional change that was a result of that stand she took.

Now we know that the higher the education and the involvement of women in a culture and economy, the more secure the nation. It’s a metric we use throughout our foreign policy, and in fact, it’s at the core of our development policy. It is a big, important shift in thinking. Horrifying practices like female genital cutting were not at the top of the agenda because they were part of the culture and we didn’t want to be accused of imposing our own cultural values.

But what Hillary Clinton has said over and over again is, “A crime is a crime, and criminal behavior cannot be tolerated.” Everywhere she goes, she meets with the head of state and she meets with the women leaders of grassroots organizations in each country. This goes automatically on her schedule. As you’ve seen, when she went to Burma – our first government trip there in 40 years. She met with its dictator and then she met with Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman he kept under detention for 15 years, the leader of Burma’s pro-democracy movement.

This isn’t just symbolism. It’s how you change the world. These are the words of Dr. Gao Yaojie of China: “I will never forget our first meeting. She said I reminded her of her mother. And she noticed my small bound feet. I didn’t need to explain too much, and she understood completely. I could tell how much she wanted to understand what I, an 80-something year old lady, went through in China – the Cultural Revolution, uncovering the largest tainted blood scandal in China, house arrest, forced family separation. I talked about it like nothing and I joked about it, but she understood me as a person, a mother, a doctor. She knew what I really went through.”

When Vera Stremkovskaya, a lawyer and human rights activist from Belarus met Hillary Clinton a few years ago, they took a photograph together. And she said to one of the Secretary’s colleagues, “I want that picture.” And the colleague said, “I will get you that picture as soon as possible.” And Stremkovskaya said, “I need that picture.” And the colleague said, “I promise you.” And Stremkovskaya said, “You don’t understand. That picture will be my bullet-proof vest.”

Never give up. Never, never, never, never, never give up. That is what Hillary Clinton embodies.

I don’t exactly have a list of favorite female politician/role model types, but if I did, she’d be on it. Right next to Madeleine Albright.

(via dandelionbreaks)